1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to devices used for Hygienic Protection of a toothbrush, more specifically to a toothbrush utilizing a cover to achieve such hygienic effect, for the primary purpose of protection against airborne contaminants, as well as harmful bacterial and viral agents.
2. Description of Prior Art
Toothbrushes have been used for many years to clean ones teeth. Only in the more recent past has the importance of a sanitary brush become well known. Toothbrushes are often stored in the bathroom and a Bathroom can be a very unclean place. Even if it appears to be clean on the surface airborne contaminants, viral agents, and bacterial agents abound and thrive under such conditions. These same airborne contaminants (ie. Fecal material from a flushed toilet), bacterial and Viral agents are the cause of Illness and Disease. There is a need for a hygienic toothbrush that is economical, easily used and effective in prevention of bacterial and viral contamination.
More recently Hygienic Toothbrushes or related devices have been developed and used to clean, or keep toothbrushes clean and sanitized, yet none of these prior art inventions has been able to achieve any significant degree of commercial success due to one or more of the inherent problems/flaws discussed more thoroughly below.
It has been found that many of the prior art inventions are simply inadequate in preventing contamination of the toothbrush. Many are inadequate in preventing bacterial growth on the bristle head due to poor ventilation (poor airflow) allowing bacterial growth on the brush head. Worse yet, Some Prior art inventions don't ventilate their covers at all, allowing bacteria growth to flourish. Bacterial growth is aided by warm moist conditions. In addition, many prior art inventions simply take up too much space; they are “space-inefficient”. In a bathroom, or elsewhere, space is a limited commodity, especially countertop space.
Much of the prior art is complex and/or expensive to manufacture, this expense of course is being passed on to the consumer, and preventing mainstream acceptance. In addition to this, many are complex enough to use to become a hassle to the user, thereby preventing mainstream acceptance. In general, an easy to use product will gain acceptance faster than a complex one, especially when dealing with an everyday, mundane task of brushing ones teeth. Furthermore, many of the prior art inventions are too unconventional, and depart too much from the mainstream toothbrush that the brushing public has come to know and become comfortable with. In short, they are too far off the mainstream to gain public acceptance.
Please consider the following prior art inventions in light of the preceding discussion:
Much of the prior art can be recognized as disinfecting containers/storage holders for one or more toothbrush(s). As a group they are bulky, that is they take up unnecessary countertop and or wall space, and as mentioned space is a limited commodity. Such disinfecting containers create countertop clutter. Additionally, many of them are designed such that the brush head is to soak in a sterilizing liquid. Soaking the bristles makes them less stiff, and diminishes their ability to clean as well as a dry, stiffer bristle does. In addition to this many of the prior art inventions in this grouping are complex and expensive. Most of them also have poor ventilation, which inhibits the drying of the brush, making it an easier place for bacterial contaminants to flourish (Bacteria thrive in warm moist conditions, and the longer the toothbrush remains moist when exposed to air the more chance that bacteria will colonize in such a place.) They are also not easily transportable if the user is traveling. Additionally, they are often messy to maintain, especially if utilizing a liquid disinfectant. The following prior art inventions share one or more of the above shortcomings.U.S. Pat. No. 4,997,629 to Marchand, et al (1991) is a canister which utilizes a sterilizing liquid for storage and sterilization of the container.U.S. Pat. No. 5,023,460 to Foster et al, (1991) Is a toothbrush sanitizing container utilizing ultraviolet lights to sterilize the toothbrush, is large and bulky, very complex, and expensive.U.S. Pat. No. 6,099,813 to Gipson (2000), is an expensive and complex toothbrush holder and sanitizer.U.S. Pat. No. 5,882,613 to Gipson (1999) features a toothbrush sterilizing container, where the toothbrush is immersed in disinfecting liquid—this softens the bristles (making them not as effective; it also is bulky, expensive and messy.U.S. Pat. No. 5,107,987 to Palazzalo (1992) features a container utilizing a liquid disinfectant for the brush to soak in. This is messy, takes up additional space, and softens the bristles from soaking.U.S. Pat. No. 5,333,742 to Piedmont (1994) utilizes a mounting plate that dispenses plastic covers. The user must screw the mounting plate into the wall thereby damaging the wall. Additionally, this prior art invention also uses Plastic bags, which have questionable ventilation, are messy, and have to be replaced at the expense and inconvenience of the user.U.S. Pat. No. 4,888,487 to Ritter (1989) is a sterilizing container utilizing UV lights to sterilize the toothbrush head. The invention is unnecessarily complex, and expensive.U.S. Pat. No. 4,845,859 to Evans (1989) is a toothbrush storage and dryer system that uses light bulbs to dry the bristles. The invention is bulky, and costly to maintain.U.S. Pat. No. 5,127,521 to Borgue (1992) is a container that uses UV light to sterilize. Like Ritter (U.S. Pat. No. 4,888,487) the invention is bulky, and costly to maintain.U.S. Pat. No. 5,126,572 to Chu (1992)Is another a container that uses UV light to sterilize, and has the same shortcomings as Ritter (U.S. Pat. No. 4,888,487)U.S. Pat. No. 4,396,238 to Torruella (1983) is Bulky, and not economically manufactured.U.S. Pat. No. 4,816,648 to Dusabek (1989) Uses Heat to disinfect and is expensive complex and BulkyU.S. Pat. No. 5,086,916 to Gray (1992) features a Toothbrush Sterilization unit and mounting bracket—it is not easily transportable and is, Bulky, expensive, messy, and Complex.U.S. Pat. No. 5,505,301 to Foley (1996) features a carrying case/container that is bulky and poorly ventilated.U.S. Pat. No. 5,052,556 to Wilkinson (1991) Is a Toothbrush Traveling case that is Large and Bulky, and won't fit within a conventional toothbrush holder. This prior art invention also exhibits poor ventilation.U.S. Pat. No. 5,771,521 to McNamee (1998) Features a sanitary brush cover system that is really a container. The invention groups multiple brushes together allowing for transmission of bacterial and viral agents. It is also large and Bulky.U.S. Pat. No. 6,171,559 to Sanders (2001) is a sterilization storage unit, which utilizes a hot air drying system and microbial spray. This is expensive, unnecessarily complex, and expensive to maintain (battery operated) It is also bulky.U.S. Pat. No. 6,119,854 to Prentice (2000) is a sanitary toothbrush storage unit with a liquid filled reservoir. It is bulky, messy, and has the effect of softening the bristles through soaking them in disinfectant, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the bristles in cleaning between teeth.U.S. Pat. No. 4,214,657 to Winston (1980) is a toothbrush holder and sterilizer that has the same problems as with others, in that the toothbrush bristles stay wet reducing their stiffness, and thereby reducing their effectiveness. Winston's Invention is two pieces, messy, requires maintenance (changing of sterilization fluid on regular basis), and is bulky.U.S. Pat. No. 4,234,087 to Pandak (1980) is a combination toothbrush holder/carrier, which sits on countertop, and has the same aforementioned shortcomings as the othersU.S. Pat. No. 4,585,119 to Boyinaton (1986) is another prior art invention that uses a Liquid sanitizing agent and has all of the shortcomings of Winston (U.S. Pat. No. 4,214,657)Let it be known that after an exhaustive search of the available prior art I Have Not found any Single-piece Hygienic Toothbrush with cover that is permanently fastened. All prior art utilizes a cover system in which the cover separates from the main toothbrush unit—thereby encountering problems such as increased contamination when the cover piece must be set on the contaminated countertop, or inconveniently held during the entire brushing period.
All of the following prior art has a cover unit that is a separate piece than the toothbrush itself, and is not permanently attached in any fashion. All of the following Prior art has the problem of temporary storage of the bristle cover while brushing is taking place (My hygienic toothbrush with cover solves this problem). It is a problem because the cover is otherwise placed on the countertop or like surface, and contaminated with harmful bacteria. Additionally, if the bristle cover is not permanently fastened to the toothbrush it may easily be lost rendering it useless to the owner. A bristle cover that is always conveniently and unobtrusively stored with the brush is more likely to be used, and therefore more effective. Furthermore, the prior art inventions within this category all have relatively poor ventilation of the covering mechanism, making it easier for harmful bacteria to flourish.
Please consider the following prior art in light of the immediately preceding discussion. All of the following utilize a cover that is completely separable from the Toothbrush itself, none of them are permanently fastened to the toothbrush structure, as is the present invention. Other shortcomings of the prior art are as discussed.
U.S. Pat. No. D343296 to Schneider (1994) is a large bulky cover where the ventilation slots at the top of the cover allow airborne contaminants to settle through ventilation slots onto the bristles/brush head.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,408,920 to Walther (1983) has poor ventilation.
U.S. Pat. D351286 Tapocik (1994) is a toothbrush Cover with poor ventilation, and is bulky.
U.S. Pat. D351286 to Tiramani, Et al (1992) is large and bulky, and won't fit in most toothbrush holders.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,044,386 to Nelson (1991) has a poor ventilation system.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,275,750 to Clark (1981) features a separate Toothbrush cover with poor ventilation and a bulky handle, which won't fit in conventional toothbrush holders.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,924,567 to Wenum (1999) features a re-useable storage cap that is not fastened to the toothbrush, and that has no internal storage compartment to store the cap during brushing.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,835,813 to Lorenzana, Et al (1989) exhibits a protective cover for a toothbrush having poor/inadequate ventilation.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,044,039 to Picard (1991) also exhibits a poorly ventilated cover for toothbrush Bristles that are not permanently fastened to the brush structure itself.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,048,144 to Andrews (1991) features frictionally engaging sides gripping the bristle head to form temporary attachment. The attachment to the brush structure is in no way permanent, and can easily be lost or contaminated since it is not attached permanently. When lost the cover is of course useless to it's would be user.Additionally, there is no top piece to the cover. The bristle cover is ventilated through the top most portion, which allows free floating airborne contaminants to settle on and contaminate the bristles. My hygienic toothbrush with cover covers the topmost portion, and ventilation is on the sides of the cover, where particles are less likely to settle, and where the most surface area is.U.S. Pat. No. 5,779,046 to Plakos (1998) uses a decorative toothbrush guard featuring a hinged cover, which is not permanently attached. It has inadequate ventilation, is bulky, and suffers from the same shortcoming as the other previously mentioned art.U.S. Pat. No. 5,960,801 to Vermooten (1999) Features a complex toothbrush accessory/enclosure that uses a sanitizing tablet, which turns gaseous to sterilize the brush head. Utilization is expensive and inconvenient for the user.U.S. Pat. No. 4,421,433 to Villanueva (1983),U.S. Pat. No. 6,102,203 to Marro (2000),U.S. Pat. No. 6,129,090 to Pillar Et al (2000), and U.S. Pat. No. 6,026,532 to Catanzaro (2000) all utilize a separable cover piece, that is not permanently attached in any fashion to the toothbrush structure resulting in the aforementioned problems. Other shortcomings mentioned in previous prior art discussion are readily apparent with these prior art inventions as well.U.S. Pat. No. 5,887,601 to King (-1999) features a two Piece Toothbrush, similar to separated Cover/Cap above Prior art. The same problems as in the immediately preceding prior art exist here (ie. Contamination by placing on countertop, Loss of cover due to not being permanently attached, etc.). Additionally, the adjoining pieces used to form the toothbrush are meant to be able to be deconstructed, and can easily come apart during brushing resulting in injury.U.S. Pat. No. 5,139,142 to Simon (1992) features a disposable Toothbrush Cover for a toothbrush bristle head. The Simon invention has limited ventilation resulting in increased risk of bacteria growth on the bristle head. Furthermore, disposability means constant replacement and expense, this is an inconvenience to the user both economically, as well as physically. Also, the would be user is not protected when it runs out of the disposable item. It is expensive and, prone to countertop contamination when the user temporarily places the cover on the countertop. Additionally, the dispensing mechanism is bulky, and unsightly/unattractive.Similar to the above mentioned prior art “self-contained” toothbrushes utilizing a cover system U.S. Pat. No. 5,832,940 to Embry et al; (1998) utilizes a telescoping cover for toothbrush. This invention like the above prior art has a separate cover and the resulting shortcomings apply to this prior art invention as mention in the preceding discussion relation to toothbrush covers that were not permanently fastened to the brush structure.Additionally, Embry invention suffers from poor ventilation, it is unnecessarily bulky, and is unnecessarily complex and expensive.U.S. Pat. No. 6,671,920 to Pearlman, Et al (2004) like Embry (U.S. Pat. No. 5,832,940) features a telescoping “self-contained” toothbrush. It has the same problems and additionally has poor ventilation. It furthermore, has a necessarily wide base so can receive the telescoping components preventing it from fitting into conventional toothbrush holders. Additionally, the wide base also makes it uncomfortable to hold.The stability of the brush, when in use, is also compromised due to telescoping feature.
Much of the remaining relevant prior art can be categorized as Collapsible Toothbrushes or Foldable Toothbrushes. All Such prior art inventions to date inherently have the following problems that they all share:
They are less sturdy than single piece construction toothbrushes, and they can easily lead to injury. Brushing is often a vigorous exercise. Any compromise in sturdiness, or resulting wobbliness may easily lead to injury of the user. If the hinged mechanism comes apart during use, or even wobbles a little this can result in gum, tooth, and/or mouth injury. Additionally, because all of the prior art folding and collapsible toothbrushes fold or collapse into themselves they are as a result more bulky, and won't fit in a conventional toothbrush holder when folded/collapsed.Furthermore, the folding/collapsible toothbrush prior art all have poor/inadequate air ventilation for the bristle head since the head of the brush disappears into a solid handle lacking ventilation completely, or at best is poorly ventilated. This of course facilitates the previously discussed problems of Bacterial and Viral contamination and growth. Finally, many are prohibitively expensive to the consumer.
Please consider the following relevant prior art in light of the immediately preceding discussion.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,866,809 to Pelletier (1989) exhibits a telescoping feature to collapse and extend the handle of the brush. This Telescoping feature is not as sturdy as a one piece, single construction/non-collapsible brush. Also the telescoping construction is more expensive and difficult to manufacture, has a wide base, which is uncomfortable to the user, and won't fit in a conventional toothbrush holder. Finally, the cover piece is removable, which results in the same problems associated with separable cover prior art previously discussed. The Pelletier prior art invention also exhibits poor ventilation.U.S. Pat. No. 6,560,810 to Jacobson (2003) features a folding toothbrush that is hinged in the middle, which decreases its overall stability. Brushing is often a vigorous exercise. Any compromise in sturdiness/wobbliness may easily result in injury to the user.Here, the cover piece is clumsily attached to handle, making the handle difficult to effectively use. Also, as a result of the width when in folded position it cannot be stored in a conventional toothbrush holder.Finally, there also appears to be no or inadequate ventilation.U.S. Pat. No. 5,476,333 to Mathews (1995) showcases another foldable toothbrushMathews exhibits all of the above-mentioned problems in U.S. Pat. No. 6,560,810 to Jacobson (2003) as well, as having the shortcomings of being expensive, complicated and messy to refill. Finally, the cover is not attached, and is awkwardly positioned.U.S. Pat. No. 5,735,298 to Mayne (1998) features a Tri-fold multi purpose brush, which has the same problems and shortcoming discussed for foldable/collapsible toothbrushes.U.S. Pat. No. 5,382,107 to Nian (1995) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,464,294 to Chee (1995) have the same shortcomings and problems as discussed above in the discussion on Collapsible toothbrushes and foldable toothbrush prior art.Lastly, U.S. Pat. No. 4,780,923 to Schultheiss (1988) features a permanently attached cover system not compatible with a toothbrush. The Schultheiss invention is a dental instrument that has a cover/cap that is permanently attached towards the top of the dental instrument. The Cover does not completely recess into the handle of the toothbrush; Furthermore this design could not be effectively used with a toothbrush because the cover would be in such a position that it would be injurious to the toothbrush user, when brushing their teeth, could cut their gums etc. The cap/cover is permanently positioned in such a way that if used, as a toothbrush it would be in the user's mouth!Another shortcoming of Schultheiss is poor/inadequate air ventilation.
The fact that Hygienic Toothbrush's utilizing cover systems are not in widespread use suggests that barriers exist to their acceptance/commercial production. This is because there are no products on the market that meet the main consumer criteria of inexpensiveness, effective, easy to store, easy to use, and are not a radical departure from the look and feel from the toothbrush that they have become comfortable with. Additionally, many prior art inventions in this category have failed to reach market, or have failed to gain commercial/consumer acceptance because of cost, difficulty of operation of the device, or difficulty to manufacture.
The Present inventor recognizes the need for a Hygienic Toothbrush with cover that addresses the aforementioned problems and disadvantages of the prior art. The present inventor also recognizes the importance of addressing these needs in a simple and low cost manor. My Hygienic Toothbrush with Cover achieves these goals, and others, while improving on all prior art. This becomes clear in the following section(s) of this application.